All that is needed is the single letter prefix "R" to get one to the right tree.

You don't need the prefix "R". ISOGG screens were setup this way, but this is arbitrary. ISOGG can change that anyway if they want. FTDNA's haplotree screens are "all in one" so they need don't need the letter "R" at all.

The net is you don't even the letter "R". It's just a handle to some continuity. I'm just saying "R1b" is a better handle that "R" as it distinguishes us from R1a..... for the same reasons this forum is named "R1b and Subclades".

There is a big difference between using "R1b" and "R1b gobbledy-gook..." in a conversation.

There is, but the use of "R1b" instead of "R" does not accomplish enough to warrant altering the shorthand system in use by the YCC, Dr. Hammer, the University of Arizona, and FTDNA.

It's strictly your opinion that "R1b" doesn't accomplish enough. That's fine. My opinion is different since R1a and R1b are not that closely related but both have large populations of tested people.

I don't really care to define what is or isn't proprietary, but the YCC is not a comprehensive standard setting body. If you look a the people and the relationships to FTDNA, it is a very limited group. They need to try to pull some of the UK folks and other Europeans at the least. I just wish that Hammer, YCC and FTDNA would be a little more prolific at updating the haplotree. Its lack of currency is what causes the most confusion. This is why I'm concerned that FTDNA may not actually support a haplotree. They can use "we are really just a genetic genealogy company" line of reasoning. I hope I am being paranoid.

As far as standards go, "R1b" is a defacto standard. That's the real thing. Our discussion is a moot point and I'm just trying to encourage people to support continuity rather than continued divergence. Even in this last week a major academic study has come that describes our bunch as "R1b".

.... wasting time on dna discussion forums could also be considered petty in that sense.

It's just diversion.

I agree, too. I just taking a break from doing my taxes and my two favorite college football teams lost last night... and my baseball team lost on Friday in a wild card game. aaaaahhh!! aaaaahhhhh!!! aaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!Well, back to taxes, but now I'm convinced I need a jack on the rocks.

I would prefer to see a neutral open standards organisation such as ISOGG maintain naming conventions rather than a proprietary regime linked to a commercial testing company. ISOGG also appear to be more efficient at updating the Phylogenic tree.

"FTDNA last updated their Y haplogroup tree in 2010 and 23andMe in 2011.* So, they are going by the subclade names that were recognized at those times. In contrast, the ISOGG Haplogroup Tree has been updated over 60 times JUST THIS YEAR! Every time a new SNP is discovered that is upstream of a known SNP (which is happening faster and faster all the time), it has to be inserted into the tree, thus changing the subclade naming pattern. This is why it is so much simpler to just learn the Terminal SNP label."

I don't agree that ISOGG trees, which are based on that nomenclature paper David linked earlier, are entirely arbitrary, if by arbitrary one means "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary). However, if by arbitrary one means "based on or subject to individual judgment or preference", then they are arbitrary, but even there, I'm guessing the choice wasn't made by any single individual.

The single letter prefix is necessary and useful, given the way things are currently organized, because the y-dna phylogenetic tree is so large that merely listing the terminal SNP is not enough direction. Scanning the entire tree for a terminal SNP is impractical and laborious, even if the entire tree were on one page that one could scroll through. As things stand, an R prefix, for example, directs one to the R tree, and finding the terminal SNP is thereafter relatively easy. (If, on the other hand, the y-dna phylogenetic tree was able to incorporate a "find" function similar to the Excel find function, the single letter prefix would be unnecessary. All one would have to do is type the terminal SNP in the Find window or box, click on "Find" and - voila! - there you are.)

I have already said, more than once, why I think using R1b instead of R as a prefix isn't particularly useful or necessary, or at least not useful or necessary enough to warrant altering the shorthand in use by the YCC and FTDNA. It could become both useful and necessary if ISOGG created a separate R1b tree page, or if some other commonly used, freely and easily accessed source of y-dna phylogenetic trees did so.

If one likes using R1b as the shorthand prefix, fine. Knock yourself out. I won't until it becomes something I think is useful, mainly because I like the YCC's and FTDNA's shorthand system. It makes sense to me, and I think standardization is useful and helpful, as it fosters ease of communication and understanding.

FTDNA customers will get guidance from FTDNA's shorthand on their Haplotree pages and elsewhere within the FTDNA system. Running into alternative pidgin shorthand systems elsewhere probably won't be too confusing, depending on the system, but they might, and they certainly won't do anything for uniformity and ease of communication.

P.S.

I also do not like two or three or four names for the same doggoned SNP.

I would prefer to see a neutral open standards organisation such as ISOGG maintain naming conventions rather than a proprietary regime linked to a commercial testing company. ISOGG also appear to be more efficient at updating the Phylogenic tree.

"FTDNA last updated their Y haplogroup tree in 2010 and 23andMe in 2011.* So, they are going by the subclade names that were recognized at those times. In contrast, the ISOGG Haplogroup Tree has been updated over 60 times JUST THIS YEAR! Every time a new SNP is discovered that is upstream of a known SNP (which is happening faster and faster all the time), it has to be inserted into the tree, thus changing the subclade naming pattern. This is why it is so much simpler to just learn the Terminal SNP label."

Agreed, agreed... I agree. (EDIT: except I have no comment what's proprietary or not. I'm not sure it matters how we characterize it. The party of Heber's statement I'm emphatic about is the part I emboldened.)

As far as standards go, "R1b" is a defacto standard. That's the real thing. Our discussion is a moot point and I'm just trying to encourage people to support continuity rather than continued divergence. Even in this last week a major academic study has come that describes our bunch as "R1b".

Or is it a group of scientists interested mainly in advancing knowledge of the y chromosome?

The first implies a group with a merely money-making interest (not that there's anything wrong with making money) in promoting its nomenclature, including the system of shorthand we have been discussing.

FTDNA is a proprietary regime, to be sure, but it did not invent this shorthand system. It is, however, the primary genetic testing company with which we all deal.

As far as standards go, "R1b" is a defacto standard. That's the real thing. Our discussion is a moot point and I'm just trying to encourage people to support continuity rather than continued divergence. Even in this last week a major academic study has come that describes our bunch as "R1b".

Here is a 20 second test to prove the point that "R1b" is a defacto standard and conveys meaning.

1. Google (whatever your favorite search engine is) R1b.

2. Next google R.

Is that the test? Seriously?

No one said R1b does not convey meaning. It obviously does. The issue is whether it conveys so much more meaning than R in terms of finding a terminal SNP on the phylogenetic tree that it warrants altering the shorthand system in use by the YCC and FTDNA.

As far as standards go, "R1b" is a defacto standard. That's the real thing. Our discussion is a moot point and I'm just trying to encourage people to support continuity rather than continued divergence. Even in this last week a major academic study has come that describes our bunch as "R1b".

Here is a 20 second test to prove the point that "R1b" is a defacto standard and conveys meaning.

1. Google (whatever your favorite search engine is) R1b.

2. Next google R.

Is that the test? Seriously?

No one said R1b does not convey meaning. It obviously does. The issue is whether it conveys so much more meaning than R in terms of finding a terminal SNP on the phylogenetic tree that it warrants altering the shorthand system in use by the YCC and FTDNA.

For me, it doesn't, so I'll stick with the YCC shorthand.

Yes, seriously.

The importance is not so much that R1b conveys meaning. It's more that R doesn't. The "R" is practically useless.

YCC shorthand is fine but its hardly an across the board standard and just more alphabet soup with limited meaning.

As a community we are becoming increasingly technical and naturally cook up a bunch of acronyms to make for more efficient communications. The problem is that we need some terms that have practical meaning. It's hard to have an efficient conversation, or even an efficient thought process without having some terms memorized so one doesn't have to refer to a haplotree chart constantly.

R1b is already meaningful, found in literature and on the internet. A novice can at least do some of their own homework with a fighting chance. Why make it harder for them?

I want to clarify something. I have no comment on YCC or FTDNA being a propietary regime, or not. I've been involved in some open standards battles and what's open and what's propietary is often in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not sure if it that important.

A good example is the iPhone. Its the defacto market leader in smart phones. Most people would say it is a propietary system, but its ubiquitous enough its a defacto standard of sorts.

Or is it a group of scientists interested mainly in advancing knowledge of the y chromosome?

The first implies a group with a merely money-making interest (not that there's anything wrong with making money) in promoting its nomenclature, including the system of shorthand we have been discussing.

FTDNA is a proprietary regime, to be sure, but it did not invent this shorthand system. It is, however, the primary genetic testing company with which we all deal.

This is an curious area as I've never really understood YCC. The same as Heber noted, they seem lethargic in producing updates. This is the point I really agree with Heber on.

FTDNA and YCC are very closely linked. If anything that is an understatement since FTDNA's chief scientist is Dr. Mike Hammer of the U of Arizona and the YCC.http://www.familytreedna.com/about.aspx

"FTDNA last updated their Y haplogroup tree in 2010 and 23andMe in 2011.* So, they are going by the subclade names that were recognized at those times. In contrast, the ISOGG Haplogroup Tree has been updated over 60 times JUST THIS YEAR!

This what worries me. Why is FTDNA so far behind in updating the haplotree? If it is because they are rewriting their SNP database and haplotree display programs I'm fine. However, if it is because they are struggling so much with it and are just going to ditch the haplotree, ouch. I don't know, I would think they are not up to that. If so, ISOGG is our last best hope.

I'm not sure where the "Hammer Lab" ends and YCC beings or vice versa.

A while back -- I don't know how long -- there was a dedicated YCC website that listed the members, explained the rationale of the tree and naming system (and a reference to the paper wherein that was first proposed), displayed the original tree and the (few) subsequent updates to it.

That site has gone, and now we find in its place a link to Hammer lab.

I get the feeling that the YCC has quietly disbanded itself. If so, then I don't blame them. They had little to no chance of keeping up with the rate of new SNP discoveries given that they revised the YCC tree only on the basis of SNPs that were mentioned in published peer-reviewed papers. Citizen science took over and left the YCC in its dust.

Quote

This what worries me. Why is FTDNA so far behind in updating the haplotree? If it is because they are rewriting their SNP database and haplotree display programs I'm fine. However, if it is because they are struggling so much with it and are just going to ditch the haplotree, ouch. I don't know, I would think they are not up to that. If so, ISOGG is our last best hope.

FTDNA is so far behind ISOGG because, by policy, it tied its haplotree to the YCC one. As we know the YCC did not keep theirs up to date and thus FTDNA's was ancient history, too.

It remains to be seen what FTDNA intends to do. Perhaps they will abandon the tree business completely and leave that to ISOGG.

For what it's worth, here are my two cents, although I don't have a strong position one way or another:

1. For academia and FTDNA, I have no problem with their simple references to 'R'.2. For forums like this, it is a nice courtesy to know if someone is R1b or R1a and labeling as such does help a little.

For what it's worth, here are my two cents, although I don't have a strong position one way or another:

1. For academia and FTDNA, I have no problem with their simple references to 'R'.2. For forums like this, it is a nice courtesy to know if someone is R1b or R1a and labeling as such does help a little.

That's pretty much sums up my feeling.

I would add3. I request that ISOGG continue to maintain some kind of phylogenetically intelligent labeling system in addition. (I request this of FTDNA too but that's probably a done deal. This also does not mean we should use that in forums like this for the most part.)

As far as standards go, "R1b" is a defacto standard. That's the real thing. Our discussion is a moot point and I'm just trying to encourage people to support continuity rather than continued divergence. Even in this last week a major academic study has come that describes our bunch as "R1b".

Here is a 20 second test to prove the point that "R1b" is a defacto standard and conveys meaning.

1. Google (whatever your favorite search engine is) R1b.

2. Next google R.

Is that the test? Seriously?

No one said R1b does not convey meaning. It obviously does. The issue is whether it conveys so much more meaning than R in terms of finding a terminal SNP on the phylogenetic tree that it warrants altering the shorthand system in use by the YCC and FTDNA.

For me, it doesn't, so I'll stick with the YCC shorthand.

Yes, seriously.

The importance is not so much that R1b conveys meaning. It's more that R doesn't. The "R" is practically useless.

YCC shorthand is fine but its hardly an across the board standard and just more alphabet soup with limited meaning.

As a community we are becoming increasingly technical and naturally cook up a bunch of acronyms to make for more efficient communications. The problem is that we need some terms that have practical meaning. It's hard to have an efficient conversation, or even an efficient thought process without having some terms memorized so one doesn't have to refer to a haplotree chart constantly.

R1b is already meaningful, found in literature and on the internet. A novice can at least do some of their own homework with a fighting chance. Why make it harder for them?

Well, we disagree. I think R is meaningful enough for a shorthand system, and R1b doesn't add enough additional meaning to make it worth adding two characters to the prefix and altering the system in use by the YCC and FTDNA. I think we all ought to stick to the same shorthand, and, since this is the one being used by FTDNA, we should go with it. I also don't think things like this should be merely matters of personal taste, but what the heck?

We've already gone round and round on this, so we'll have to leave it there.

It isn't all that important, but it was fun to toss around for awhile.

Thanks for contributing a dizzyingly mindless post like that, which implies that if one likes FTDNA's shorthand system and thinks standardization in haplogroup designators is a good thing, he is some kind of advocate of authoritarianism.

Well, we disagree. I think R is meaningful enough for a shorthand system, and R1b doesn't add enough additional meaning to make it worth adding two characters to the prefix and altering the system in use by the YCC and FTDNA.

Everyone has a right to his or her opinion.

My opinion is the letter "R" is very close to absolutely meaningless. If you want a prefix, "R1b" is something that a novice can look up in academic papers, Wiki articles and forums (like this one, the properly named "R1b and Subclades" forum. "R1b" is meaningful. If you are a novice, and look up "R", good luck. Please note I'm giving practical and applicable reasoning to my opinion.

FTDNA is a very powerful company in genetic genealogy, particularly because they are the lab arm of the National Genographic Project. Their opinions and reporting should be considered. I'm not sure that YCC stands on its own two feet as much of standards body, though.

... but "R1b" is a defacto standard. That won't be changed by one company even if it is a company I want to be wildly successful - the company I support. If YCC could expand and academics across the world would get on board that is great. I am sincere in that wish. However, YCC is not on targert with the way to do it.1) Hardly publishing updates to the Y tree while ISOGG plugs them out monthly or even better. 2) Being hard to reach on the web. Just try googling YCC.3) Having a home page that looks like the Hammer Lab home page: http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/That's scary! Look at the YCC home page and wait for their skull to show up and you'll see what I mean. LOL. They are doing it to themselves.

I think we have to look to ISOGG for true standards. They can't force anyone to do anything but I think they have us (the people) and the community in general, in mind in their interests, as the top priority.

Like I said, we disagree. R1b is the longhand version - okay, not so long so near the root of the R Tree - of M343. It's not any kind of standard except for those who choose to make it their standard and use it in the shorthand in place of the single letter R prefix. That's their prerogative.

I've already said I don't think R is meaningless or close to meaningless in the shorthand system the way it has been devised. It does its job - it gets you to the right phylogenetic tree - and it does it with one character instead of three. Once you've been directed to the right tree and seen that, you know where the terminal SNP is, and not merely relative to R1b, but to even more significant SNPs, like P312 and U106. Using "R1b" instead of R is not going to save anyone the same trip to the R tree and the process of scrolling down to find the terminal SNP.

If one feels R1b provides much more clarity, fine. I don't think it does, but that's me, and I also think going with the actual standard that will appear in all of FTDNA's stuff, and maybe in NatGeo's stuff, as well, is a good idea.

Perhaps you all can mount a massive campaign and lobby FTDNA to increase the shorthand prefix to three characters. If they do that, then I'll start using "R1b" instead of R. Until then, or until R1b gets a separate tree at ISOGG and elsewhere, I'll stick with the single letter prefix.

I've already said I don't think R is meaningless or close to meaningless in the shorthand system the way it has been devised. It does its job - it gets you to the right phylogenetic tree - and it does it with one character instead of three....

My point on why it is useless is there is really no need to have separate trees for each haplogroup. FTDNA's haplotree is an all in one dynamic display. R does really do anything. ISOGG does display its trees by haplogroup but that could be changed easily. To keep the single letter system to support the ISOGG screen design is almost circular reasoning.

As I said before... all that is really needed is the terminal SNP. Just do a ctrl-F (Find) from your browser, type in the SNP and , you are at the right spot.

Maintaining the old haplogroup lettering is just an attempt at continuity. I think that is wise, but its just that the single letter "R" is just about useless in comparison to "R1b", which can be read about in papers, searched on the internet by novices, etc. These are real benefits enhancing communications within the community.

... Perhaps you all can mount a massive campaign and lobby FTDNA to increase the shorthand prefix to three characters. If they do that, then I'll start using "R1b" instead of R. Until then, or until R1b gets a separate tree at ISOGG and elsewhere, I'll stick with the single letter prefix.

I think one has to pick their battles and trying to get FTDNA to change is probably not a wise use of time unless I wanted to become an investor, which I don't.

Perhaps you can mount a massive campaign to lobby the research universities, like Oxford, authors, population genetic scientists, etc. to conform to FTDNA. Maybe you can get Jean to help you and can update Wikipedia and other internet web site to move to "R" and way from "R1b". I don't think you'll get people to rewrite old papers though.

What would be useful would be if you could figure out what YCC does... actually does.. who is really committed to it, and build support for it, create a web site for them and help them find funding to write papers.

Guess what? Nothing is going to change. There is no single consensus standard that will be followed... .and inevitably the defacto standard, R1b, still lives.

Well, I'm repeating myself so I guess about every thing has been said.